Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#71

Post by throw0101a »

NestedLoopGoBrr wrote: post #42
xpe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Though the article doesn’t mention the coordinated and active censoring of the NY Post story, even in private conversations, which was already a heavy stroke of interference in the elections. You packed a lot into this one sentence. Please share your evidence.

Straight from the source itself: https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-pos...

And Twitter corrected their action:

* https://twitter.com/jack/status/1317081843443912706

* https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/twitter-facebook-blo...

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#72

Post by chaostheory »

kweinber wrote: post #26
chaostheory wrote: post #4

Who would have predicted 20 years ago that we should be more wary of Little Sister (big tech) instead of Big Brother? I like to call them Little Sister because of how they name their seemingly innocuous digital assistants.

Is anyone seriously more worried about the independent players of big tech than an oligarch who has roused the firepower and hatred of domestic terrorists across the country? The rhetoric is really overblown.... these companies waited years and until the heads of state were fully under attack before they did much of anything. This isn’t even about free speech. People can still say what they want.... they just don’t h…

It may be great right now, but what happens when Little Sister's ideals and motivations are no longer aligned with ours?

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#73

Post by ahurmazda »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #51
ahurmazda wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t one argue that we have had a (gnarly) A/B test in the past few years— Twitter, FB mostly let different groups use the platform as the latter see fit. End result is (mind you not theoretical): erosion of civil discourse, platforms being used to organize illegal activities, proliferation of misinformation (during a pandemic) etc. We are kinda beyond what we could happen if company X did not allow Y to begin wi…

> erosion of civil discourse What erosion of civil discourse are you talking about? 10 years ago half or more Americans were against gay marriage, today 30% of the US is against that, except nowadays they are also called neonazis and are being deplatformed from major platforms. Do you think 50 years ago there could be civil discourse on legalizing rape or celebrating Holocaust? No, these people would get the same tre…

>If you think that an average citizen is too stupid to think for themselves, ...

I sincerely have no such intent. Apologies if it came out that way.

>> erosion of civil discourse

Maybe my naivete but it seems that online discussions are much less nuanced compared to face to face discussions we had when growing up. Sure I disagreed with relatives but it certainly feels a lot more intense now a days (quite possible that its just the nature of the medium).

>>level of discrepancy of Overton windows between rural and urban America

Do you have any recommendation on how to lessen this gap? I live in a major metropolis. But I keep getting a feeling that such a widening chasm can not be good for the society.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#74

Post by rdiddly »

kweinber wrote: post #26
chaostheory wrote: post #4

Who would have predicted 20 years ago that we should be more wary of Little Sister (big tech) instead of Big Brother? I like to call them Little Sister because of how they name their seemingly innocuous digital assistants.

Is anyone seriously more worried about the independent players of big tech than an oligarch who has roused the firepower and hatred of domestic terrorists across the country? The rhetoric is really overblown.... these companies waited years and until the heads of state were fully under attack before they did much of anything. This isn’t even about free speech. People can still say what they want.... they just don’t h…

raises hand

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#75

Post by cousin_it »

loceng wrote: post #18
beefee wrote: post #14

Are there any companies or organizations working to protect Internet freedom?

That want to allow inciting of violence on platforms? Serious question. Edit to add: anyone going to answer or just downvote and ignore the question?

I think people who want to talk to each other should be able to do it without my listening or interfering, even if they're planning violence against me.

Don't get me wrong, I do want to be defended from violence! But not at all costs. I don't want people to be tortured in the name of defending me, and I don't want every conversation on the internet to be monitored and censored in the name of defending me. That's too much.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#76

Post by alasdair_ »

cm2187 wrote: post #15
paganel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash. It depends which type of Republicans, right now it looks like the party is de facto split in two. Even though today's vote showed that they still think the Trump side will win out in the medium to long term, otherwise I can't explain why they chose to face the media storm directly and voted against impeachment.

I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.

>I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office

Doing so bans the person from holding federal office forever. In other words he couldn't run again in 2024.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#77

Post by baumy »

kweinber wrote: post #26
chaostheory wrote: post #4

Who would have predicted 20 years ago that we should be more wary of Little Sister (big tech) instead of Big Brother? I like to call them Little Sister because of how they name their seemingly innocuous digital assistants.

Is anyone seriously more worried about the independent players of big tech than an oligarch who has roused the firepower and hatred of domestic terrorists across the country? The rhetoric is really overblown.... these companies waited years and until the heads of state were fully under attack before they did much of anything. This isn’t even about free speech. People can still say what they want.... they just don’t h…

It is perfectly possible to be worried about both, which is where I'm currently at. The amount of influence a handful of individual companies (run by unaccountable BDFLs) have over our entire social discourse should make everyone uneasy.

If I had to pick though, yes I would say I'm more worried about people who think the state of affairs this article is discussing is completely fine, as opposed to idiots acting out after being cooped up at home for a year. The latter is a concerning problem but one much more easily dealt with, if for no other reason than that a large majority of people agree that it is actually a problem.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#78

Post by alasdair_ »

mullingitover wrote: post #37
cm2187 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.

> I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office If a military officer commits a felony offense the week before they're discharged, I don't think the military would/should say "well you're so close to leaving, so we'll still give you an honorary discharge and a pension." I feel like the same concept applies here, otherwise we're opening the door to the president being able to commit im…

>Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk.

I doubt it. Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#79

Post by throw0101a »

chaostheory wrote: post #4

Who would have predicted 20 years ago that we should be more wary of Little Sister (big tech) instead of Big Brother? I like to call them Little Sister because of how they name their seemingly innocuous digital assistants.

> Who would have predicted 20 years ago that we should be more wary of Little Sister (big tech) instead of Big Brother?

William Gibson?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprawl_trilogy

Cory Doctorow? Ridley Scott with Blade Runner and the Alien series? Paul Verhoeven with RoboCop. Frank Herbert with CHOAM.

Re: The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy

#80

Post by d1zzy »

xpe wrote: post #6

In my view, understanding all sides of the following question is central for anyone who wants to understand the implications of modern social technology. > To cut a politician and affiliated organizations off from payment processors, Web-hosting services, and e-mail providers is to halt them at the level of infrastructure. It is a different game than the moderation of user-generated content, and raises different ques…

So who's going to pay the money to keep the lights on for Trump?

At the end of the day these companies are businesses that cater to their customers. For adtech that's advertisers. The reason a lot of non-illegal content is removed from platforms is because it can't be monetized. When someone incites violence no advertiser wants to have their ads show up along side their clip, or even simply on the platform that hosts such content. So the platforms will listen to their customers and make sure to remove such content, simple.

If you want to force platforms to host content that hurts their business you should also propose how they will be compensated for the lost of revenue from doing so, especially if large advertisers start pulling out from the entire platform. Are you going to use tax money to compensate these businesses so that they can't remove that content?

Post reply on HN